Further to Perseus (Sunday, 13 August 2006 12:50:32 PM), the Forum article’s author makes well-informed commentary about recycling and desalination but he is mute on the topic of rainwater tank policy. He is not alone. There is no political party (Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Democrats and Greens) or environmental lobby group (including ACF and QCC) that is prepared to acknowledge the resource that is collecting rainwater from the roof of every building in Australia. To do so would require them to have authoritative data about cost, yield, ownership, lowest cost manufacturing options and roll-out methodology for achieving economies of scale. None can. Evidence abounds of “the strangling hand of administrative inertia” as the Hon Frank Sartor described NSW Government policy on 16 September 2003 when he announced measures for “slashing red tape” to encourage rainwater tanks. Politicians take the advice they want to hear. Bureaucrats do not want to advise politicians about rainwater tanks and so everybody is happy. However, it is achievable for every building in Australia to have rainwater supply installed within 10 years. It goes without saying that the cost must be competitive with mains water, desalination and sewerage recycling. Fortunately it is. When asked recently about his policy on sewerage recycling, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, said that he supports recycling full stop. Mr Howard said that he would have voted yes in the Toowoomba referendum should he have had a vote. Well, the National Water Commission in his department did vote $23 million for the Toowoomba recycling proposal - provided a yes vote was recorded. And yet, in Toowoomba, the City Council rejected rainwater tanks as an option on the basis that the yield would be 25Kl a year at an installation cost of $5000. The Local, State and Federal Governments will not investigate the proposition that, in Toowoomba, the cost is under $3,000 and the yield is 59KL a year (for the last 12 months, and the lowest rainfall for a century).
Greg Cameron

All solutions on the table, you said, Malcolm.

First, please remind Australians they are drinking dinosaur piss, and always have done. The water is 4000 million years old and has been in and out of countless organisms, including people, since the dawn of time. So we should start recycling it like the rest of nature does.

Toowoomba showed it is happening. Before that city's poll, 70 per cent of Australians opposed recycling. After the poll, the number opposed was 60 per cent. Next poll it will be 50, and we're in business. Even a politician couldn't argue with that.

Our cities currently recycle 2-3 per cent of their water and throw the rest away.

Second, build more dams. But not the big wasteful ones on the surface which suffer from evaporation and contamination. The underground dams CSIRO has been pioneering in Adelaide. Aquifer recharge, as it is known, is a distinctively Australian solution to the problem of the huge waste of urban runoff. When water is stored underground the nasties in it are removed naturally in a space of a few weeks, without need for chemical treatment.

With these two measures there is no further need for Australia's cities to take any water from dying inland rivers, from agriculture, or pollute their oceans and estuaries.

And, by the way, let's recycle the nutrients into fertiliser too. With world food production needing to double in the next 40 years, we'll need 'em all.

Greg, you commented

"I have proposed that the cost of rainwater is $0.40/KL with an up-front capital cost of $3000 for a 5KL system yielding 75KL – 100KL in Brisbane. (Perseus would install a 13.5KL rainwater system.)"

But the $3000 is money that could be used in other ways if it weren't spent on a rainwater tank. It could, for example, be used to pay off part of a mortgage. If you spend it on the tank, then you can't do that, but you can use the avoided cost of mains water to pay back the mortage as and when the money is saved.

Twenty five years downstream, when the tank is worn out, the owner is going to consider it was a good investment only if he owes less on the mortgage that he would have otherwise. At a 7% interest rate, and assuming water prices inflate at 3%, that means that the current water price would have to be $1.90, and it is not.

Ian,

I think your costings are a little on the optimistic side, even for a house where installation is simple. However, my main concern is the impact on mains water pricing if the reservoirs are treated by everyone as a supply of last resort. The capital for the dams and water mains still has to be invested, and the marginal operating cost per litre is minimal. So the income would have to stay about the same, but would consist largely of the access charge. The overall effect would be that people would be paying the sum of their existing water cost plus the costs associated with their water tank.

Sylvia.

Poor old one-eyed Perseus has yet again indicated that he has no interest in sustainability (12 August).

Why can’t he just let others express their concerns and not comment if he is not interested in that particular subject? Why did he bother commenting on something that he finds such a “yawn”? Could it be that he just wants to knock the stuffing out of ol’ Ludwig at every opportunity, for daring to even mention this vitally important aspect of the whole water issue?

“He has never heard of rainwater tanks and doesn't approve of any other workable solutions….”

Off he goes again spouting a complete lie. He knows full well that I agree with him about the large-scale the implementation of tanks, as indicated on other threads on this forum (eg; http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4685#48097), yet he makes out that we are at total odds on this issue. Ooooww he couldn’t be seen to be agreeing with Ludwig now. Oow no, we couldn’t have that! Must maintain the polarisation!

This is not the first he has been comprehensively caught out lying on this forum. In fact he is often scurrilously frugal with the truth. Tch tch tch. ):>|

“Spot on Fester”.

He is confused. Fester has often expressed the same sort of concerns as myself regarding continuous population growth and stabilisation of overall demand on our resource base. He is only reading half the message in Fester’s last post.

“zealots” “gonzo” “bozo”

Oh that Perzeuz, he’z so funny! (:>)

My mother once had a recipe for rabbit stew.
The recipe was in point form and steps in numerical order.
Rabbit Stew
1. Catch your rabbit.
2. Skin it.
3. Cook it.
Now from that recipe what would be the recipe for buying a rainwater tank.
1. It has to rain!
What is the good of a rainwater tank when it doesn't rain?
You are left with a bill for an empty rainwater tank.
Should the townships of Goulburn and Toowoomba, the towns lacking in water buy rainwater tanks?

Perseus writes;

“So let your water tank set you free.”

As if to say that all we need to do is get a large tank… and not think any more about the whole water situation?

Water tanks are a significant part of the solution, but they are certainly not the total answer. See my comments on this at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4636#46954

I implore Perseus to broaden his perspective.